[tangent on the Art vs Tech discussion] Examples of technological advancement?

[Lessa]

Can someone come up with a good example of objective, technological advancement in the hobby (related to actual rules and not to publishing or layouting, that is) ?

I'll make a case for player-on-player social mechanics, myself. I think in the past they were pretty bad, honestly. "We don't need no mechanics for roleplaying around here!" and "It's MIND CONTROL!!" shouted the masses. The way I see it, that's due to old games applying the same resolution template of "I try something > success > I have things my way" to player-on-player interaction, which meant the losing side was now forced to act/RP/describe things in a way it didn't feel like to. Or, player agency was down the hole. "Wants to keep that personal secret of yours? Too bad, I just won the persuasion check and now you're forced to reveal it to me. MWA HAHAHA!". Or else it was all RP and no dice (and good luck to the timid player hiding at the corner whose voice is heard twice per session, one being "pl-pl-please pass the chee-tos"). Fast forward some decades and we found a much better solution through the use of carrots/incentives to push players into directions while leaving choice in their hands all times. Bingo!

Thoughts? Any other example of tech advencement in the hobby?

 

[raniE]

Well, no big surprise considering my OP in the technology thread, but I don't really think there have been many advancements per se Other than there now being may more ways of doing things, which is a positive in my opinion. In the end everything I can come up with boils down to being something outside the rules.

 

[Gabriel]

I think one of the most important advancements is the idea behind point buy systems if not the explicit idea of building a character. The idea at the foundation of a point buy system is the drastic technological innovation of a player actually being able to play what they want as opposed to what they play being dictated by random roll.

Just about every game and gamer now accepts this basic advancement, that a player should be able to play a character they want to play. The exact method of this varies from arranging random rolls to full point buy to modelling, but it's almost undeniably the norm now in gaming aside from a few stalwarts who insist on 3d6 in order, no rerolls, followed by random rolls on background and class charts.

 

[Stevethulhu]

It would be interesting to see a timeline of when things were first used in a published game, what game it was and whether or not the game in question survived to this day.

 

[A Fiery Flying Roll]

It would be interesting to see a timeline of when things were first used in a published game, what game it was and whether or not the game in question survived to this day.

HERO was the first to use point buy I believe.

 

[Gabriel]

Another one I'd like to put forward is the idea of the generic mechanic. I'm not really talking about a universal mechanic, although that would certainly fit.

Older games left a lot of game subjects completely uncovered. When those types of situations were covered, it was typical to dream up an entirely new subsystem just to handle that one situation. If the situation wasn't considered worthy of a subsystem consisting of several charts and d100 rolls cross referenced, it was normally handled completely by GM fiat, or "common sense."

Whenever it was actually developed, somewhere along the line someone started realizing there needed to be a general way to resolve these kinds of things other than simply the GM declaring it was so or via arcane chart consultation. The "attribute check" was born. This was a simple and standardized method to cover things not otherwise covered via the rules, and it didn't rely on the spontaneous creation of a new subsystem or GM fiat. It provided a basic way that characters could be gauged on basic activities not normally detailed in the rules.

Just about every game has a mechanic like this now whether it's called an "attribute check" or simply default skill use or something else.

 

[raniE]

HERO was the first to use point buy I believe.

The Fantasy Trip came out in 1980 and is full point buy. That is a year before Champions 1st edition. However, it seems Superhero 2044 has them both beat. Point-buy, came out in 1977.

 

[Edgewise]

Here's a couple:

DCC: The funnel
PbtA/Blades in the Dark: clocks

 

[Ladybird]

PbtA/Blades in the Dark: clocks

Clocks are great, but : they're countdown timers, just presented in a new way.

---

I'd suggest Pendragon's personality traits, because they let the character talk to the player; if you're ever unsure as to what the character would do, you can phrase it as a trait pair and ask them.

I also like the simplification of inventory items; both the "x slots" method of the Fighting Fantasy multiplayer books (If not earlier), and the "whatever" method of Feng Shui and descendents. They don't necessarily work for every game, but they're fast and simple.

 

[EmperorNorton]

What games previously used countdown timers though? Or at least to the extent and way that Blades did.

Honestly the whole abstraction of the accomplishments of dozens of different factions using clocks rather than having to actively think about what each faction did is not something I had seen outside of Blades.

Now, some people may have been doing it in their games, without it being codified, but I don't think I'd ever seen it as a codified system.

 

[TJS]

I think if we think of new tech not as necessarily superseding the old but as broadening the ways to approach gaming, then there are probably lots of examples.

So these things stand out:
- Point buy design
- Skills
- Advantages and Disadvantages
- unified mechanics

It's hard to argue that they didn't have a huge influence on gaming, even if they all have problems and limitations that should be obvious by now.

 

[Ladybird]

What games previously used countdown timers though? Or at least to the extent and way that Blades did.

Honestly the whole abstraction of the accomplishments of dozens of different factions using clocks rather than having to actively think about what each faction did is not something I had seen outside of Blades.

Now, some people may have been doing it in their games, without it being codified, but I don't think I'd ever seen it as a codified system.

Fair point.

 

[TristramEvans]

Can someone come up with a good example of objective, technological advancement in the hobby (related to actual rules and not to publishing or layouting, that is) ?

I'll make a case for player-on-player social mechanics, myself. I think in the past they were pretty bad, honestly. "We don't need no mechanics for roleplaying around here!" and "It's MIND CONTROL!!" shouted the masses. The way I see it, that's due to old games applying the same resolution template of "I try something > success > I have things my way" to player-on-player interaction, which meant the losing side was now forced to act/RP/describe things in a way it didn't feel like to. Or, player agency was down the hole. "Wants to keep that personal secret of yours? Too bad, I just won the persuasion check and now you're forced to reveal it to me. MWA HAHAHA!". Or else it was all RP and no dice (and good luck to the timid player hiding at the corner whose voice is heard twice per session, one being "pl-pl-please pass the chee-tos"). Fast forward some decades and we found a much better solution through the use of carrots/incentives to push players into directions while leaving choice in their hands all times. Bingo!

Thoughts? Any other example of tech advencement in the hobby?

Here's the problem I have with all such so-called "modern advancements" I've come across - they aren't modern. All of this was stuff being discussed heavily in fanzines in the early 80's.

 

[Justin Alexander]

I'll offer something small and specific: The blackjack method of determining margin of success in roll-under percentile games, in which your margin of success is equal to the number you rolled on the dice.

It's clearly superior to the previous method (of subtracting die roll from target number), eliminating an entire step of calculation without altering probability.

Honestly the whole abstraction of the accomplishments of dozens of different factions using clocks rather than having to actively think about what each faction did is not something I had seen outside of Blades.

That actually originates with Apocalypse World.

Blades' innovation here was broadening the mechanic to include more than just threats/fronts.

Blades also tied specific mechanical outcomes to clock ticks, which I don't think AW did (leaving the clock ticks entirely to the GM's discretion).

This is a great example of "technological" advance, with one game introducing a piece of technology and a subsequent game clearly improving on that "tech."

 

[EmperorNorton]

I love blackjack rolling for roll under. It's such a simplistic and easy to explain design.

 

[Endless Flight]

Which game came up with Luck/Hero Points first?

 

[Bunch]

HERO was the first to use point buy I believe.

Superhero 2044 and it's earlier edition superhero 44 predate HERO and is the chassis for the house rules that would become HERO. It had point buy/build.

However I seem to recall and even earlier superhero game more obscure than SH2044 that had point buy. I believe it's acknowledged as the first game to be published with point buy sometime in 1977 or 78.

 

[SavAce]

Which game came up with Luck/Hero Points first?

I'm not 100% sure. I know the Victory Games' James Bond RPG does it in 1983, so that beats out Marvel Super Heroes Karma in '84, DC Heroes' Hero Points in '85, or Star Wars' Force points in '87.

 

[Gabriel]

DCC: The funnel

I wouldn't say DCC invented this. I'd say it's been around for a long time. I know it was a fairly common way to play D&D, even if not a formally described method. I'm not sure if the AD&D1 adventure Treasure Hunt was explicitly supposed to be this, but I've read of it used in that manner.

Just about every story I used to read about Tunnels & Trolls described a funnel, a player making up a bunch of characters and then another GM player running an adventure over and over with different sets of single player controlled parti until at least one of the player characters made it out alive.

So perhaps DCC was the first to formalize it, but it's a technique that has been used for a very long time, I think.

Which game came up with Luck/Hero Points first?

The earliest examples I can think of are the Conan modules for AD&D1 and/or maybe the original Marvel Super Heroes by TSR.

The James Bond RPG and it's Hero Points probably predate both. Is there anything earlier than that?

The "luck point" style of mechanic has been significantly modified over the years, but it does now seem to be a standard installment in certain classes of games.

 

[Gabriel]

Here's the problem I have with all such so-called "modern advancements" I've come across - they aren't modern. All of this was stuff being discussed heavily in fanzines in the early 80's.

When trying to think of examples, it certainly doesn't seem like there are wide ranging developments embraced since the 80s.

 

[Bunch]

Superhero 2044 and it's earlier edition superhero 44 predate HERO and is the chassis for the house rules that would become HERO. It had point buy/build.

However I seem to recall and even earlier superhero game more obscure than SH2044 that had point buy. I believe it's acknowledged as the first game to be published with point buy sometime in 1977 or 78.

The game I was thinking of was Supergame RPG. It came after SuperHero 44 and Villains & Vigilantes but before Champions.

 

[Gabriel]

I'd suggest Pendragon's personality traits, because they let the character talk to the player; if you're ever unsure as to what the character would do, you can phrase it as a trait pair and ask them.

I've never seen the game in question, but are the more recent types of mechanics in games where you define a freeform trait somewhat similar to this mechanic?

Fate springs to mind immediately with it's aspects, but I'm also thinking of games where you have single word natures or demeanors or traits or whatever the system calls them. These items usually don't have strict mechanical definitions, and come into play whenever it is deemed they do. These then serve as triggers for bonuses on certain rolls or allow you to engage with the Luck Point mechanic present or other things.

I don't know if this is a separate "advancement" or would just be considered a refinement of what you bring up. The first game I personally recall seeing it in was Dragonlance SAGA, but nowadays a similar sort of freeform personality mechanic seems almost omnipresent. I think even D&D5e has begun to embrace a pseudo variant.

 

[Bunch]

Was there an earlier game than Over the Edge to use freeform stats/abilities?

 

[SavAce]

Was there an earlier game than Over the Edge to use freeform stats/abilities?

Over the Edge is '92... seems like there should be something earlier but nothing is coming to mind. I was thinking maybe something like FUDGE, but that only started to come together in November of '92, so after OtE.

 

[Bunch]

Over the Edge is '92... seems like there should be something earlier but nothing is coming to mind. I was thinking maybe something like FUDGE, but that only started to come together in November of '92, so after OtE.

Agreed. It seems like there should be something earlier but I can't think of anything.

 

[Voros]

I think any hope of 'objective' agreement on rules improvement are going to be hard to come by when people can't even agree on descending AC vs. ascending AC.

Perhaps though more would be willing to accept that layout and information design in the OSR and other games has improved?

 

[Voros]

Another one I'd like to put forward is the idea of the generic mechanic. I'm not really talking about a universal mechanic, although that would certainly fit.

Older games left a lot of game subjects completely uncovered. When those types of situations were covered, it was typical to dream up an entirely new subsystem just to handle that one situation. If the situation wasn't considered worthy of a subsystem consisting of several charts and d100 rolls cross referenced, it was normally handled completely by GM fiat, or "common sense."

Whenever it was actually developed, somewhere along the line someone started realizing there needed to be a general way to resolve these kinds of things other than simply the GM declaring it was so or via arcane chart consultation. The "attribute check" was born. This was a simple and standardized method to cover things not otherwise covered via the rules, and it didn't rely on the spontaneous creation of a new subsystem or GM fiat. It provided a basic way that characters could be gauged on basic activities not normally detailed in the rules.

Just about every game has a mechanic like this now whether it's called an "attribute check" or simply default skill use or something else.

I believe attribute checks were first introduced to D&D as an optional rule in the back fof B/X. I get the feeling it was a widely use houserule. I assume there were games before that that introduced it though?

 

[AsenRG]

Well, no big surprise considering my OP in the technology thread, but I don't really think there have been many advancements per se Other than there now being may more ways of doing things, which is a positive in my opinion. In the end everything I can come up with boils down to being something outside the rules.

There have been advancements that I consider advancements. But the question is, which of the things I consider an advancement is universally considered an advancement?

Hint: none. If it was universally considered an advancement, all games would have adopted it already.
Our hobby is too much a matter of taste. Some like them some fruits on their pizzas, some prefer fish, some like them both, others consider either one an abomination and a mockery of Real Pizza 4 Manly Men...ok, maybe without the manly men part!

As an example, I consider skill-based characters to be an advancement over class-based, and lifepath chargen an advancement over levels and classes. Yet some people might like classes better*, as hard as it is to believe!
Same goes for the Passions of Pendragon, and pretty much anything else you might be thinking of.

*Of course, they're merely mistaken. But that's besides the point!


OTOH, pretty much nobody considers black powder weapons to be superior to AK-47 when it comes to rate of fire. And I haven't heard of a movement towards buying ENIACs instead of the latest Intel chips.

 

[Ladybird]

I've never seen the game in question, but are the more recent types of mechanics in games where you define a freeform trait somewhat similar to this mechanic?

So in Pendragon, you have your stats and skills, just like any other game, but you also have a set of other personality traits (Chaste / Lustful, Energetic / Lazy, Forgiving / Vengeful, Generous / Selfish, Honest / Deceitful, Just / Arbitrary, Merciful / Cruel, Modest / Proud, Pious / Worldly, Prudent / Reckless, Temperate / Indulgent, Trusting / Suspicious, and Valorous / Cowardly). Each pair is collectively rated out of 20, with the original values set by your character's religion and player choice. So let's say your character had Merciful 5 / Cruel 15; that says something about that character, it says that given the choice they will probably tend towards being aggressive and it would take quite a bit to make them want to spare someone.

Now, as a player you're likely going to roleplay that, and that's fine, but if there was ever a situation where you weren't sure what you wanted to do, or some outside force was trying to make your character act against their best wishes or the like, you could make that roll to see what the character wants. It's like a big elaboration on alignment and charisma, but it makes it interesting; you can read a Pendragon character's personality traits and get far more information out of it than alignment could ever hope to provide.

I love blackjack rolling for roll under. It's such a simplistic and easy to explain design.

And Advantage / Disadvantage! It's got such a great feel at the table; it feels good to throw away the worst die, it feels bad to throw away the good die. It's mechanically the same as "roll an extra die and throw one away" mechanics that have been done before, but the combination of keyword and mechanic just belong together.

Hint: none. If it was universally considered an advancement, all games would have adopted it already.

There are no universally good or bad rules or mechanics. There are ones which are more or less appropriate in a particular game for a particular table, but that's it.

 

[soltakss]

Here's the problem I have with all such so-called "modern advancements" I've come across - they aren't modern. All of this was stuff being discussed heavily in fanzines in the early 80's.

For some of us, that is modern.

 

[AsenRG]

There are no universally good or bad rules or mechanics. There are ones which are more or less appropriate in a particular game for a particular table, but that's it.

Exactly my point. Glad we agree!

But then we can only talk about advancement as it applies to my group!

 

[soltakss]

For me, modern technology in games includes:

• Players shaping the world
• Narrating results of actions, both by Players and GMs
• Hero Points/Bennies/Whatever commonly used (Yes, James Bond had them years ago, but they have only recently become commonplace)
• Diceless games
• GM doesn't roll for anything

 

[AsenRG]

For me, modern technology in games includes:

• Players shaping the world
• Narrating results of actions, both by Players and GMs
• Hero Points/Bennies/Whatever commonly used (Yes, James Bond had them years ago, but they have only recently become commonplace)
• Diceless games
• GM doesn't roll for anything

...which is also an excellent example of things some people would consider downgrades.

 

[TJS]

I think it would be useful to distinguish between technologies and playstyles.

For example, I'd argue that "players shaping the world" is a playstyle. I just don't see where the technology is in that concept.

Of course technology can shape playstyle. Certain tech "developments" (deliberately avoiding the loaded term "advances") may enable new playstyles - they may even give rise to them - but I think the distinction still matters.

 

[TJS]

I think I would see tech (if we treat rules/design elements as tech) as a bit like tech in say,..education.

Whether something is a technological advance is fairly independent of whether it actually leads to better education and it depends on goals and implementations. Sometimes something is truly revolutionary in the additional possibilities it allows (such as the invention of the photocopier or being able to do research by the internet) and sometimes it's just some shiny new app that's someone's selling that looks like it should be useful but which no-one really knows what to do with.

For the former see classless point-buy design or exception based design. For the latter see something like the Icon dice/relationships in 13th Age which even the designers of the game don't really seem sure what to do with it (but they know that it's shiny.)

 

[AsenRG]

I think I would see tech (if we treat rules/design elements as tech) as a bit like tech in say,..education.

Whether something is a technological advance is fairly independent of whether it actually leads to better education and it depends on goals and implementations. Sometimes something is truly revolutionary in the additional possibilities it allows (such as the invention of the photocopier or being able to do research by the internet) and sometimes it's just some shiny new app that's someone's selling that looks like it should be useful but which no-one really knows what to do with.

For the former see classless point-buy design or exception based design. For the latter see something like the Icon dice/relationships in 13th Age which even the designers of the game don't really seem sure what to do with it (but they know that it's shiny.)

That's closer, yes...
But some people are of the opinion that classless point-buy and exception-based design* were a step back. And arguably they might have been - for the way those people play their games.

*Though I'd argue that OD&D is very much exception-based design, so that one ain't exactly new. You hit once per round, unless you're a Fighting Man of 2nd or above level facing low-HD critters, in which case you hit as many as your level. Damage normally requires a roll - attack or saving throw - unless you use Magic Missile.

 

[Lessa]

AsenRG ,

Have you read my example in the OP about rules for player-on-player social interaction? Don't you consider going from having no choice/agency at all in old games ("I succeed in my persuasion check, now come here and sniff my crack") or leaving it all to GM fiat ( and fuck the timid player), to having mechanics that cover it AND preserve player choice/agency in newer games, an advancement?

In other words: consider you only have oD&D and Smallville at the table, and a group that never played neither (so no previous bias) but that wants a GoT-inspired game of drama & politics. What do you suggest and why?

 

[AsenRG]

AsenRG ,

Have you read my example in the OP about rules for player-on-player social interaction?

Yes.

Don't you consider going from having no choice/agency at all in old games ("I succeed in my persuasion check, now come here and sniff my crack") or leaving it all to GM fiat ( and fuck the timid player), to having mechanics that cover it AND preserve player choice/agency in newer games, an advancement?

You...you mean the thread is about AsenRG 's preferences? I had no idea!

Joking aside: not necessarily.
Depends on the group, in other words.
Also: that's called framing the question to only have one desired answer. You have all the choice in the old games, agency...I'm still not sure what people mean with that word, so can't comment.

In other words: consider you only have oD&D and Smallville at the table, and a group that never played neither (so no previous bias) but that wants a GoT-inspired game of drama & politics. What do you suggest and why?

In all seriousness: Depends on the group!
If I'm running it* or if I don't know the group: OD&D.
Reasons:
1) Smallville has a rule about PCs only dying when the player agrees, which is as antithetical to GoT as it can get.
2) I dislike Cortex's back-and-forth enough that I don't want to touch it, which applies if I'm running it (and if not, why in hell are they asking me?)
3) OD&D has rules for running castles and manors, which is stuff you need.
4) OD&D has rules for mass combat...I think? OK, maybe not that one, but it's easier to plug something like Chainmail into OD&D. Wars are a thing in GoT.
5) OD&D has rules for retainers, and they matter. A lot. Need I elaborate? (Bron...)
6) If we're modding the game, you can use OD&D's random reaction table for all kind of shenanigans.
7) I've never seen social mechanics to actually help socially incompetent players, and if you name a social mechanic, I've probably used it on my group.
8) I've seen social mechanics that made the social butterflies load up on martial skills to avoid having to use anything but threats. Threats were easy to "get" under that system.
9) The actual "plots" in Got are on a level I'd expect from high school games.

So...does that answer the question?

 

[A Fiery Flying Roll]

Was there an earlier game than Over the Edge to use freeform stats/abilities?

I suspect that probably came from homebrew "systemless" games (always popular at the Student Nationals) than any specific rpg.

 

[Lessa]

Yes.

You...you mean the thread is about AsenRG 's preferences? I had no idea!

Joking aside: not necessarily.
Depends on the group, in other words.
Also: that's called framing the question to only have one desired answer. You have all the choice in the old games, agency...I'm still not sure what people mean with that word, so can't comment.


In all seriousness: Depends on the group!
If I'm running it* or if I don't know the group: OD&D.
Reasons:
1) Smallville has a rule about PCs only dying when the player agrees, which is as antithetical to GoT as it can get.
2) I dislike Cortex's back-and-forth enough that I don't want to touch it, which applies if I'm running it (and if not, why in hell are they asking me?)
3) OD&D has rules for running castles and manors, which is stuff you need.
4) OD&D has rules for mass combat...I think? OK, maybe not that one, but it's easier to plug something like Chainmail into OD&D. Wars are a thing in GoT.
5) OD&D has rules for retainers, and they matter. A lot. Need I elaborate? (Bron...)
6) If we're modding the game, you can use OD&D's random reaction table for all kind of shenanigans.
7) I've never seen social mechanics to actually help socially incompetent players, and if you name a social mechanic, I've probably used it on my group.
8) I've seen social mechanics that made the social butterflies load up on martial skills to avoid having to use anything but threats. Threats were easy to "get" under that system.
9) The actual "plots" in Got are on a level I'd expect from high school games.

So...does that answer the question?

You chose to focus on the GoT when you should have focused on the "drama & politics" part. So lemme rephrase the question:

Consider a group wanting just the "drama & politics" part with no previous bias, would you still recommend oD&D over Smallville (or Monsterhearts/Masks/Weapons of the Gods/Hillfolk/Mouseguard/ANY game with structure to support social interactions for that matter) ?